2. The Episcopal Church and Its Position in the Process of Religious Centralization. The Inadequacy of Its Inner Principles and Search for Outer Support. Ritualism and Its Inner Significance. “The Bankruptcy of Protestantism.” The Search for Catholicity and the Location of True Uncorrupted Catholicity. The Inclination of the Episcopal Church Toward the Orthodox East

Of the three principal denominational forms, the one most conformable to the American character is undoubtedly the middle one—namely, the Episcopal Church. It is free from both the extremes of individualism and the opposite extremes of Roman Catholicism, and therefore, if any church among those mentioned is destined to become the one church of a unified American people, it is precisely the Episcopal Church. In its history there was already a period when the golden dream drew near to realization. Even before the outbreak of the Civil War, which served as the ultimate turning point in the consciousness of the American people, signs of weariness with sectarian fruitless ferment began to be noticed in the people, and many of the most perceptive minds sought solace in large religious communities. The Episcopal Church, as free from the extremes of Roman Catholicism, was then most suited to the awakening sentiment and began a bountiful harvest. “From 1850 to 1856, the numerical growth of its members far exceeded that of previous periods. Its clergy ranks were strengthened both in numbers and influence. A spirit of unprecedented activity apparently rose within it, and besides all this there was evident in it a disposition to gather around itself other Protestant denominations and unite them with itself into one ecclesiastical body. This disposition found approval even beyond its flock. Many of those who had never before called themselves by any distinctive Christian name, attracted by its dignity and order, began to regard it as the most desirable of all Protestant communities. Notable dissenters turned their eyes toward it, seeking refuge from that schismatic abyss in which their various boats had already been nearly capsized. Great mutual reciprocity on both sides and complete sympathy with the movement on its part—that is all that seemingly was necessary for creating that unity which fractured Christendom has so long desired. This was the most favorable moment for it. The iron was hot for forging. The wheat was ripe for harvest. Deep peace presented favorable conditions for discussion and investigation. The spirit of organic life was kindling in the people and men showed an inclination toward the closest union with one another. All that was necessary was a strong will and a skillful hand to remove some remaining obstacles, and the triumph of Episcopalism in the country could have been assured.”[1] This important moment in the history of Episcopalism, however, did not lead to the results that might have been expected. The Episcopal Church, thanks to this lifting of spirit within itself and the general demand of the time, of necessity, before coming forward with the great mission of uniting Christian communities, had to carefully examine its own internal capacity for such a mission. This necessity was recognized by its best representatives, and from them it was that at the convention of 1853 there came a series of memoranda, of which it was said above. From these memoranda it is evident that if great was the demand of religious consciousness for a church that could satisfy the “great moral and social needs of the time,”[2] then all the more clearly did the inadequacy of the Episcopal Church in satisfying them come to light. The demand of the time forced a deeper investigation into the essence of Episcopalism, and in this internal analysis there was revealed all the instability of its foundations. Resting as it did on a compromise between two extremes, it could still maintain equilibrium between them in ordinary peaceful conditions. But faced with the strong movement that began around it in the 1850s, it found itself in a difficult position. The foundations represented by compromise were far too unreliable and unstable to withstand the strong pressure of the popular spirit. It demanded firm, positive foundations, but these did not exist in the Episcopal Church. And so it, conscious of the greatness of the demand addressed to it and at the same time feeling its own weakness and inadequacy in satisfying that demand, wavered at its very foundation. The more it needed positive foundations, the more clearly was revealed before it the unreliability of its own foundations. Such an indefinite and abnormal condition could not be permanent. It had to find a way out of it. If its own foundations were weak, then it was necessary to seek them outside itself. Before it stood Protestantism on one side and Roman Catholicism on the other. The former could not serve as a support for Episcopalism because it itself suffered from instability. Thus there remained only Roman Catholicism. But to seek support in Roman Catholicism for Episcopalism meant to renounce itself and erase its own past history. It arose as a protest against the abnormal development of Roman Catholicism, and therefore accepting what had been rejected would be an absolute denial of its right to exist. Yet it had a right to exist even as an external equilibrium to the extremes. If it was now unstable in its foundations, this meant only that it had not established equilibrium between the extremes with sufficient precision, and denying extreme Protestantism and extreme papacy not with sufficient consistency, it had not carried through the principle of equilibrium, and therefore did not maintain the essential elements that constitute the necessary condition for stable existence. This inevitable process of thought led the more consistent representatives of the Episcopal Church to a careful analysis of its middle position, and they discovered that the whole cause of Episcopalism’s instability lay in this: that in rejecting Roman Catholicism, it also failed to refrain from rejecting certain truths that constitute essential elements of church life, and thus did not remain at the true middle point but inclined toward Protestantism. As soon as the true cause of Episcopalism’s unstable position was found, there naturally arose the desire to remove it. If the cause lay in excessive inclination toward Protestantism, then obviously the only means for establishing equilibrium remained—to shift the center of gravity in the direction of Roman Catholicism. And indeed, a process of such shifting did begin, and it was expressed in the well-known movement that received the name of Ritualism.

Ritualism, viewed in its general characteristics, is precisely a reaction against the excessive intrusion of Protestant principles into the system of Episcopalism. In it two directions are observed, which nevertheless have one and the same general goal. One of them wishes to restore in Episcopalism only those principles and forms by which it was distinguished in the age of the Reformation and from which it has, over time, deviated in the direction of Protestantism. The other does not limit itself to this and aims at restoring in the Church those forms that existed in it even before the appearance of Anglicanism.[3] Both directions agree in the recognition that the present Episcopalism is not a true expression of that ecclesiastical movement, which was only a limitation of the abuses of Roman Catholicism, but lapsed into an undesirable extreme of Protestantism, and thus deviated from the essential principles of truly ecclesiastical life. The so-called “XXXIX Articles,” which constitute the symbolic expression of the essence of the Episcopalian faith, are in the opinion of Ritualists purely “Protestant articles tacked onto a Catholic liturgy”[4] and as such should be rejected or radically revised. So far as law is concerned, these views have not been expressed in any formal determinations, but in practice they have already received wide application. Ritualistic churches in New York, the main center of American Ritualism, have substantially transformed their worship, and it strikes one with the splendor and magnificence of its forms, by which it is thus essentially distinguished from the Protestantized simplicity of ordinary Episcopal churches. In transforming their worship, Ritualistic churches naturally had in view ancient Anglicanism or even Roman Catholic forms, and therefore the liturgical and ceremonial aspect in them presents very great resemblance to Roman Catholic worship, and differs in essence only in that it is performed not in Latin but in English. Splendid vestments, icons, crosses, incensing—all of this bears the imprint of Roman Catholicism.[5] But Ritualism does not limit itself merely to the restoration of external forms lost in the Protestant movement, but also strives to bring the teaching of the Church into accord with those true principles from which Episcopalism deviated. Thus, Ritualism, contrary to the symbolic book of Episcopalism, recognizes all seven sacraments, allows confession, acknowledges the doctrine of transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Eucharist, the invocation of saints, prayers for the dead, and the foundations of celibate monastic life.[6] What then is Ritualism in its inner essence? It is evidently a movement in the direction of those forms and principles of truly ecclesiastical life, the deviation from which has come to seem to the consciousness of a certain part of the Episcopalians as a sectarian error, extreme Protestantism, and consequently a denial of the essential elements of life in the true Christian Church. But such a movement, in order to realize its fundamental idea, must have in view not only the general ideal of true ecclesiastical life but also its more or less concrete realization, with which it could accord in its direction. Otherwise the movement either will be in a constant process of vacillation or will lapse into an undesirable extreme. This question has deep vital significance for Ritualism and seriously occupies the leading minds of its best representatives. Upon its resolution or the other depends the whole fate of Ritualism, and Ritualism has more than once attempted to resolve this question for its own consciousness.

In the 1860s, when the spirit of the time with special urgency pressed questions about the direction of religious consciousness of the American people, Ritualism displayed extraordinary vitality among its members. If pure Episcopalism proved inadequate to the demands of the time, then in its place Ritualism sought to step forward, and as a “Catholic” church opened its arms to the weary and exhausted Protestantism. Its preachers, with remarkable discernment, noted the temper of the age and openly began to denounce Protestantism as a completely failed and even false movement, proclaiming that the only salvation could be only a return to “Catholicity,” as the true expression of true ecclesiastical-religious life. Particularly prominent in such preaching was the well-known Episcopal preacher of New York with a Ritualistic tone, Dr. Ewer. In the autumn of 1868, he came forward with a series of sermons in which with remarkable force and boldness he proclaimed the complete failure of Protestantism in satisfying the demands of the religious spirit of humanity, and in vivid colors depicted the sad state of church life in the realm of Protestantism. These sermons of his, under the general title “The Failure of Protestantism” (bankruptcy of Protestantism), produced a profound impression on American society,[7] and the newspapers gave precise stenographic accounts of them. They represent a very characteristic expression both of the general religious state of the American people and especially of that movement which had grown out of dissatisfaction with that state. In them is expressed with extraordinary force the thirst of the American religious spirit for that true Catholicity which it vainly seeks among the denominational forms existing in America. In this sense it has direct relevance to our subject, and therefore we consider it necessary to briefly set forth their main thoughts.[8]